The Phase 1 Questionnaire Results

The general outcome of this study in relation to McClelland’s (1961; 1987) and Snyder and Fromkin’s motives (1980) was similar to Zinkhan et al.’s study (1999). 74% of Zinkhan et al.’s statements were connected to these motives. This study’s outcome was higher with 85%. The remaining 15% of statements of this study were connected to the experiential and utilitarian need.

Comparison to Zinkhan et al.’s study (1999)

	Uniqueness (%)	Affiliation (%)	Power (%)	Achieve-ment (%)	Utilitarian (%)	Experi-ential (%)	Post-modernism (%)
Current study	38	3	21	23	10	5	/
Zinkhan et.al. (1999)	17	24	23	10	13.5	/	12.5

The more detailed comparison of the findings from this study with Zinkhan et al.’s results (1999) showed that the outcome of the individual motives was quite different. This needed to be investigated further in the interviews. Particularly the results for the need for uniqueness, the affiliation motive and the achievement motive were quite countrary. Another difference was that the experiential need was found to be of interest in this study and the category of Postmodernism was not adopted from Zinkhan et al.'s study.  
In the discussion of the questionnaire findings it became obvious that Zinkhan et al. had categorised certain responses of participants differently. Some responses that were classified under the achievement motive according to Schreier (2006) in my study were categorised under the affiliation motive by Zinkhan et al., which could be one reason why their outcome of the affiliation motive was so high and the achievement motive was much lower. However, this study had a high need for uniqueness outcome, which justified a low affiliation result as the need for uniqueness implies a need to seek differentiation from others and affiliation is the need to be with others. Furthermore, the need for power was relatively high in this study as well as in Zinkhan et al.’s study. However, this also serves as an explanation as to why the affiliation motive ranked so low in this study, since people try to stand out through risk-taking in the power motive and people try to avoid risk in the affiliation motive. There were also further responses that were categorised under the achievement motive in this study according to Schreier (2006) and under the need for uniqueness by Zinkhan et al. (1999), this could also explain the relatively high outcome of the achievement motive in this study.


Below is an illustration of the importance of the motives depending on the demographic cluster. The percentage is based on the number of statements in each group (n = number of statements).[1]

	Uniqueness Motive (%)	Power Motive (%)	Achievement Motive (%)	Affiliation Motive (%)	Utilitarian Need (%)	Experiential Need (%)
IF (n=18)	39	22	11	6	11	11
NIF (n=23)	39	17	35	/	9	/
IM (n=15)	13	47	27	/	13	/
NIM (n=21)	52	5	19	5	9.5	9.5

The categorisation of the motives into the demographic groups (Irish females, non-Irish females, Irish males and non-Irish males) showed that the uniqueness motive was most significant in the IF,NIF and NIM groups, whereas only the male group had a majority outcome for the power motive. Overall there were some visible differences between the groups.

To follow up on these findings interviews were deemed important in order to gather more in-depth information. Furthermore, the interviews were also necessary to explore the participants' understanding of Mass Customisation. More details will follow shortly.

---

[1] In order to compare the findings of this study with Zinkhan et al.’s findings (1999) it was decided to calculate the total for each motive based on the number of statements (n=77). It was not based on the number of participants as it was possible for them to give more than one answer, which was then classified under more than one motive. Similarly, for the comparison of the motives between the demographic groups it was also decided to base the percentage on the number of statements, which varied between groups.

Consumer Motivations in relation to Mass Customisation - part 2

In addition to my last blog entry it should be said that Zinkhan et al.'s use of motives was based on the work of McClelland (1961; 1987) and Snyder and Fromkin (1980). However, the utilitarian need was added by Zinkhan et al. as it was deemed relevant by them.

During my research I discovered that there was a gap in the Mass Customisation literature as there was a lack of exploratory studies on customers’ motivations and attitudes towards mass customised products. This was what motivated me to research this topic further. Zinkhan et al.’s study was a very good foundation for my study as they used a projective technique in order to research hidden motives of people to create a website. In the first part of my research I attempted a similar study as Zinkhan et al. in order to find out what hidden motives existed in a Mass Customisation setting. I used a cartoon test to picture a person wearing a mass customised T-shirt and asked people to fill in the blank space of a speech bubble. The person wearing the customised T-shirt is thinking that she is very happy with this T-shirt. A second person says that she is wondering why the person in the customised T-shirt is so happy about wearing it. The third person's sentence starts with 'I guess it is because...'. At this stage people are asked to fill in their own thoughts on this. This was to give me an insight into the motives that played a role here. 

Other questions were also present on the questionnaire, i.e. such to determine the demographic information and questions on the internet usage of participants. More details on the results of the first part of this study will follow.  

Consumer Motivations in relation to Mass Customisation - part 1

Wow, it has been a while. I was so focused on my research that I didn't even get to update this Blog. However, the research has been successfully completed and I was able to make some interesting observations.

The article by Zinkhan et al. (1999), which I had mentioned in my last post was used as a basis for my research study. Their study was based on the US market, whereas mine focused on Europe. Furthermore, their study focused on people's motivations to create a personal website, whereas my study focused on people's willingness to customise products such as a T-shirt.
However, Zinkhan et al.'s use of motivational theories and the motives in general was reaching much further than the mostly initial studies of people's motives within the Mass Customisation field. Therefore, Zinkhan et al.'s study was deemed a very good starting point for this research. The motives that were at the center of this research were the need for uniqueness, achievement, affiliation, power and the utilitarian need.
Nevertheless, Zinkhan et al.'s study did not include one additional motive, which was deemed important in studies on Mass Customisation (Fiore et al. 2004; Schreier 2006): the experiential need.

In order to carry out the research on people's motivations to customise their products two methods were chosen: the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews.
Furthermore, the participants were divided into four groups: Irish females, non-Irish females, Irish males and non-Irish males. I was then able to compare the results from the four groups and make gender-specific or country-specific observations.

The results for this research study will follow in the next post.

Consumer Motives

In the process of reading papers on consumer attitudes I came across Zinkhan (1999) who had expanded McClelland’s theory of needs (1961). Zinkhan had carried out research on people’s motivations to create websites. This inspired me to look more into motivational theories and ultimately lead to my final research aim:
to investigate the motivations of consumers to use mass customised products.

McClelland’s theory consists of three motivational needs; the need for achievement, power and affiliation. Zinkhan’s paper developed this further by including Snyder and Fromkin’s (1980) need for uniqueness and also by adding another category, which he classified as Utilitarianism. For my own research I might have to add the experiential need, which has been mentioned in the Mass Customisation studies carried out on consumer’s attitudes (Fiore et al. 2004; Hunt 2006). The experience to design or create one’s own product is one of the main advantages of Mass Customisation, besides the uniqueness of the product.

For his research Zinkhan employed a cartoon test as a projective technique, which I have also adopted for my own research. Further elaborations on this will be made at a later time.

Mass Customisation and the customer

Well, it has been a long time since my last entry...and much has changed since then...
Something that emerged during my studies of the Mass Customisation literature is that most books and papers are actually written from an industry perspective. However, Mass Customisation is generally portrait as a customer-centric strategy.
What is interesting about this is that there are only a very limited number of articles about consumers and their view on Mass Customisation.
Most empirical studies about Mass Customisation are quantitative, and hence selective. I think in order to really understand customers, a qualitative study should be carried out instead. Therefore, I have decided to look at the motivations of people to use mass customised products and services.
There are a large number of papers and books about Mass Customisation. They include attempts to define the term, hints on which capabilities have to be present in a firm to use it as a successful strategy, case studies of firms trying out Mass Customisation and much more. It seems quite paradoxical that only a few researchers actually engaged in studying those who this is all meant for - the customer.
Therefore, I decided to look into this...

"Times and Sunday Times websites to start charging from June"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/26/times-website-paywall

The issue of definition

It is time to come back to the origin of my research and to have a look at the concept of Mass Customization. I will give a general introduction to the concept before going into specifics again.

Mass Customization evolved out of the post-Fordism movement, which is part of Postmodernism. The concept of Mass Customization is a movement away from producing standardized products as it is the case in Mass Production.

Mass Customization aims to combine craft production of customized goods and mass production of low-priced goods. However, the literature of Mass Customization emphasizes that this concept only works, if it is supported by new technologies and ways of communication.

Mass Customization has been discussed since 1987 and until today the definitions of Mass Customization vary between authors.
Tseng and Jiao defined Mass Customization in 2001 as corresponding to

the technologies and systems to deliver goods and services that meet individual customers’ needs with near mass production efficiency. (Piller, 2004)

Gilmore and Pine define the term through their ‘Four Faces of Mass Customization’ quite broadly, whereas Paul Zipkin would offer a more narrow definition of the concept. This lack of conceptual boundaries is according to Piller (2004) the reason why Mass Customization has not really taken off yet, but is rather a way of doing business for a more innovative group of firms.

There is also a grey area where it is difficult to distinguish between variety of Mass Production and Mass Customization.
This becomes obvious when comparing Gilmore and Pine’s Adaptive Approach and Paul Zipkin’s paper on the 'Limits of Mass Customization'. It becomes apparent that Zipkin’s configurable product as a form of Mass Production is what Gilmore and Pine would call the Adaptive Approach, which is one face in the ‘Four Faces of Mass Customization’.

In more recent articles by Piller this change from Mass Production to Mass Customization is represented as a process rather than an 'idealized state' that has to be achieved. Most importantly he identifies different capabilities that a company has to develop and continuously improve on in order to mass customize.